3 ms·

Personally I switched from learning Haskell to learning Racket and couldn't be happier. On the other side of banging my head I think Cabal is the biggest disapp

by baldfat 11y ago

Personally I switched from learning Haskell to learning Racket and couldn't be happier. On the other side of banging my head I think Cabal is the biggest disappointment of my experience and it was the worst package management headaches for my own private builds. Now that I am done with a book of Haskell and being a total hack at Haskell with very little skills (I did learn quite a bit of Lambda Calculus along the way) I think there is a BIG reason why Haskell has not grown in popularity in language usage and is beat by Scheme and almost beat out by ML. The experience pales to the praise and mind share in the vocal community of Haskell users.

Ixiaus 11y ago
Your comparison isn't sound. LISPs and MLs are as close together as Apples and Oranges on the functional family tree. Cabal has its problems and it primarily stems from a lack of any good "this is how you should use it" guides. Cabal is not a package manager! I cannot force you to like something but I will say this in the hope that you re-evaluate your judgement: if you still think Racket is a much better experience than Haskell and its ecosystem, you likely haven't experienced Haskell in-full. I know both languages and I've used both in production software (including many other functional languages) and I can say without any doubt in my mind that I will never select Racket over Haskell for writing software, if presented the choice. Are there glaring warts in the language? The ecosystem? The tooling? Sure, nothing is perfect and one can easily point out many more warts in other technologies that are far more popular.
- baldfat 11y ago
  RPL has been the one killer feature for my choice of Racket. I wanted to learn Functional programming and do a few scripts. Just after reading a book and a half and trying to get a few things done I really liked Racket when I went through a MOG on Programming Languages on Coursera. It went from ML to Racket and it just clicked for me.
kmicklas 11y ago
> I think there is a BIG reason why Haskell has not grown in popularity in language usage and is beat by Scheme and almost beat out by ML. Is it? I would think there is easily WAY more Haskell currently in use in both industry and academia than Scheme. Certainly the mindshare is much, much larger. I have no idea where ML is, but it seems like it should be roughly on the same order as Haskell, and surely beating Scheme.
- baldfat 11y ago
  Well take this with a HUGE grain of salt but: http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.... Also : http://langpop.com/ http://langpop.com/

by baldfat 11y ago

Ixiaus 11y ago

Your comparison isn't sound. LISPs and MLs are as close together as Apples and Oranges on the functional family tree. Cabal has its problems and it primarily stems from a lack of any good "this is how you should use it" guides. Cabal is not a package manager! I cannot force you to like something but I will say this in the hope that you re-evaluate your judgement: if you still think Racket is a much better experience than Haskell and its ecosystem, you likely haven't experienced Haskell in-full. I know both languages and I've used both in production software (including many other functional languages) and I can say without any doubt in my mind that I will never select Racket over Haskell for writing software, if presented the choice. Are there glaring warts in the language? The ecosystem? The tooling? Sure, nothing is perfect and one can easily point out many more warts in other technologies that are far more popular.

baldfat 11y ago
RPL has been the one killer feature for my choice of Racket. I wanted to learn Functional programming and do a few scripts. Just after reading a book and a half and trying to get a few things done I really liked Racket when I went through a MOG on Programming Languages on Coursera. It went from ML to Racket and it just clicked for me.

kmicklas 11y ago

> I think there is a BIG reason why Haskell has not grown in popularity in language usage and is beat by Scheme and almost beat out by ML. Is it? I would think there is easily WAY more Haskell currently in use in both industry and academia than Scheme. Certainly the mindshare is much, much larger. I have no idea where ML is, but it seems like it should be roughly on the same order as Haskell, and surely beating Scheme.

baldfat 11y ago
Well take this with a HUGE grain of salt but: http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.... Also : http://langpop.com/ http://langpop.com/